The pink or lilac-colored
variety of spodumene is today universally known as kunzite,
in honor of George Frederick Kunz. But it might well
have retained any one of several other names instead.
It is generally agreed that pink, gem-quality spodumene
was first discovered by Frederick M. Sickler. At least
it was Sickler who sent the first specimens to George
Kunz at Tiffany & Company in December of 1902, thinking
that they were possibly a variety of tourmaline. The
exact locality was not furnished to Kunz at the time,
but it was later revealed to be the White Queen mining
claim on what was later known as Heriart or Hiriart Mountain,
near Pala, San Diego County, California.

At
that time credit for the discovery was disputed because
coevally with the Sickler discovery, Frank A. Salmons,
another miner from that area, made an independent find
of the same material nearby at his Pala Chief mine,
and many considered him to be the discoverer. In a
letter to Kunz1 dated
September 26, 1904, Sickler states:

A short time ago mention was,
made in a San Diego paper of Frank Salmons, terming him the “discoverer
of Kunzite.” George H. Hazzard immediately published
an open letter calling attention to the facts of my discovery
and contradicting the statement giving credit to Mr. Salmons.
Mr. Hazzard’s article was unchallenged. For this reason
I wish you to make it clear in your report2 the
various dates of the discovery of Kunzite ledges or mines
and thus relieve me from the annoying and malicious attacks
of my disappointed competitor. Remember that no matter what
may be said or rumored, that I have the written vouchers
and correspondence showing I brought the stone before all
local lapidists and experts a year before the Pala Chief
yielded any Kunzite, and further that I made a sale to Tiffany & Co.
before any work was done on the Pala Chief. I regret to mention
that Salmons & Ernsting, who are handling the Kunzite output
of the Pala Chief mine, are advertising to the trade that
they have the only Kunzite deposit in the world!

The pink or lilac-colored variety of
spodumene is today universally known as kunzite, in honor
of George Frederick Kunz. But it might well have retained
any one of several other names instead.

Kunz
must have had a bit of trouble with this message because
Salmons and the Pala Chief mine were Kunz’ source
for the really fine, large and gemmy crystals of kunzite
that yielded the beautiful, giant-sized faceted stones
which had so impressed the jewelry fraternity. In his report
Kunz wrote a few paragraphs on the discovery of kunzite,
but finished by stating only that Sickler’s discovery “seems” to
be entitled to priority. Oh well, commerce, as well as
science and history, must be served.

Figure
2. Left to right: S. McLure, Bernardo
Heriart, Frank A. Salmons and Pedro Peiletch
at the Pala Chief mine, San Diego County, California,
one of the localities where kunzite was first
found. Photo ca. 1900, H.C. Gordon

H.C.
Gordon, who was an important long-time correspondent
of Kunz’ and who supplied Kunz with much data and
many photographs for the report, wrote to him on October
24, 1902: 3

Thinking you may like to know
the history of the gem spodumene “Kunzite” I will
let you know its location in this country, where first found,
name of discoverers, etc. The discoverers are named Pedro
Peiletch and Bernardo Heriart, Frenchmen. They first discovered
it on section 24, T9S R2W, on a mine (the
White Queen) located by themselves and Mr. Fred Sickler.
This was at least 9 months prior to them finding it in a
mine (the Pala Chief; in section 14,
located May 1903) owned by themselves and Frank Salmons
and John Giddens.

Here
were two more “discoverers,” perhaps the real
ones. Kunz was wise to hedge his bet.

Obviously
confusion reigned, as exemplified by
a photograph of Sickler,4 on the back of which is written (in Sickler’s hand) the following inscription:

To Hon. Lewis Aubury State Mineralogist
Compliments of Fred M. Sickler Co-discoverer with M. M.
Sickler of the mineral and gem lilac spodumene known as
Sicklerite but also as Kunzite & Salmonite. (sic)

Thinking you may like to know the history
of the gem spodumene “Kunzite” I will let you
know its location in this country, where first found, name
of discoverers, etc…

Figure 3. George Kunz examining
what may be the crystal of kunzite shown here
in Figure 4. From the Mineral Collector, Vol.
X, No.8, October, 1903, pp. 113–114.

Presumably he should have added
the names of Peiletch and Heriart to his list of honorees!

Charles
Baskerville, a chemistry professor
at the University of North Carolina
and later the City College of New York,
named kunzite in honor of George Kunz
in 1903, but not without much input
from Kunz himself. Exactly how the
whole matter originated has not been
recorded; nevertheless we can be sure
that it was Kunz who began it. There
is much reference to the matter in
the Kunz-Baskerville file of correspondence
at the American Museum of Natural History
library in New York, from which I quote
below.

Baskerville
was still working on the analysis of
kunzite when he wrote to Kunz on November
24, 1903:5.

Perhaps it may be necessary
for me to have a little more of the kunzite. I prefer the
colored pieces, the small refuse pieces from the cutting
will answer. Will push along the analysis as fast as we can.

Baskerville got much more than “small
refuse pieces” for analysis from Kunz, for in the
early 1950’s I was shown a fine cut and polished prism
of kunzite while attending an optical mineralogy course
at City College of New York. Professor Kurt E. Lowe stated
that it was the very same specimen worked on by Charles
Baskerville in 1903. I certainly hope that it has survived
the years with its history still attached.

In
a somewhat later off-print of his
original published work on kunzite
in the American Journal of Science in
1903, Kunz warned us twice of what
was to come. After describing several
small crystals of pink spodumene,
he said, “As this is an entirely
new gem of peculiar beauty, a name
will be given to it shortly.” And
also, “If sufficient differences
are found to exist between this spodumene
and the other known varieties a new
name will be given to it.” When
the official publication (‘Kunzite:
A new gem,’ Science, September
4, 1903) finally came out Baskerville
states: “The observations of
Dr. Kunz sufficiently characterize
this mineral of peculiar beauty as
a new gem, which he has not named...
I propose the name Kunzite, for reasons
unnecessary to give to American and
European scientific men.” This
publication (which included ten lines
quoted from Sir William Crookes on
the phosphorescence of kunzite) initiated
the following exchange:

By the way, you know I rather prefer leaving
out Crookes’s verification of our work in his letters.
Think better publish our own and send reprint; think we
would be glad to have him make public his observations
himself. It then doesn’t give appearance of bolstering
one’s work.

Quite agree with you in regard to the reference
about Sir William Crookes. I quoted him myself and although
I knew the facts, felt that coming from him it might seem
as if I was using his thunder and he has been and I believe
will continue to show us courtesies in the future.

Somewhere
in the correspondence is a reference to Crookes’ acknowledging
a faceted kunzite for his wife.

Things
were obviously handled (perhaps manipulated is a better
word) very carefully as again is shown by a note from
Baskerville to Kunz5 in
1903:

When (kunzite) analysis
is complete will make another paper - brief one with anal. & send
to Dana. Prefer to have things in better shape for him.
Whereas in Science things need not be too specific.

In
the Mineral Collector, April 1906, W. S. Valiant,
a professor of geology at Rutgers College in New Jersey,
wrote the following somewhat cryptic comments, in which
I have inserted some clarifying notes (in blue):

Figure 4. Superb crystal of
kunzite from the Pala Chief mine; 14 cm. Photo
by Harold and Erica Van Pelt. Originally sold
to J.P. Morgan by Kunz around 1903, then donated
to the American Museum of Natural History in
New York. In the 1960’s it was traded out
to Peter Bancroft, and is now in the collection
of William Larson, who in 1987 valued it at $250,000.
This photo first appeared in Letters to George
F. Kunz (Conklin:1986)

A beautiful gemstone was found
a few years since in California. This was examined by several
supposed experts; one called it topaz, another tourmaline.
Finally a fine sample was handed to Dr. W. V. Nichols of
Oceanside, Cal., who sent it to New Jersey (i.e.,
to Valiant) for determination. This was returned (by
Valiant) the same day it came, labeled “Spodumene
of fine gem quality. Another letter was sent (by
Valient) to New York (i.e.,
to Kunz) on the same day, reporting the find. This
received a kindly reply, which stated that the same mineral
was under examination there and the results would be published
soon. In the meantime our letter and sample reached California,
and in the same mail a letter asking for samples, etc. from
New York. The results of the examination in New York were
published nearly three months later, verifying our determination,
and giving it a variety name, after the “discoverer.” (sarcastic
quotation marks?) The naming was eminently proper.
In
due time a letter came from
California (from
Sickler or Salmons?),
to the present writer, stating
that the correct name of the
mineral was first given to
Californians “in your
letter of June 23d, 1903.” Also
that in California it was called “Salmonite.”
Long
stories have been published,
one in the Mineral Collector, about
this matter, but the question
as to who first “discovered” it
is still at large. A man
in California claims to be
the first, but did not know
what he had discovered, and
could find no one to tell
him. What did he “discover?” Finding
and discovering are sometimes
different matters.
Later
on, letters were received
from New York (Kunz) by
the writer, fully explaining
the apparent discrepancy,
but still leaving the question
of priority as to correct
locality and naming of the
mineral, as far as Californians
knew, to the present writer.
We should have published
the discovery at once; why
we did not, will not be given
at this time.

Nor
was Valiant’s reason ever given. What would he himself
have chosen for a name if he had published promptly? No
one knows.

As
late as 1915 controversy still surrounded “kunzite,” when
George Otis Smith, director of the
United States Geological Survey, wrote
to Kunz6 as
follows:

Mr. Parker has stated that you were not
pleased with the manner in which the gem mineral spodumene
was discussed by Mr. Sterrett in the report on the production
of gems and precious stones for the years 1913 and 1914.
I regret that you take this view of the matter, as I am
sure no affront was meant. Mr. Sterrett was simply carrying
out the policy he started several years ago of mentioning
different trade [emphasis mine] names applied to certain
gem minerals in the Survey reports. This has been done
in order that the general public in purchasing such minerals
under those trade names, might have some place to look
up the character of those minerals. Mr. Fenton, Secretary
of the Pala Chief Gem Mining Co., wrote at some length
on the subject of the California iris, and was particularly
anxious to let that name be known also, since he stated
the gem spodumene was being sold in Europe under that name
and in the Western part of the United States also. A change
in wording has been made under spodumene to appear in the
bound volume Mineral Resources for 1914, which I hope will
prove more satisfactory.

Please
note that “kunzite” is not mentioned once in
Smith’s letter, and imagine how George Kunz must
have felt upon hearing “kunzite” called a trade
name! Surely an affront was meant.

Long stories have been published, one
in the Mineral Collector, about this matter, but
the question as to who first “discovered” it
is still at large.

The
report that originally upset Kunz started out satisfactorily
enough:

Spodumene. Kunzite and Hiddenite. The production of spodumene gems in 1912 was confined to the kunzite variety.

Then
it goes on to discuss Frank Salmons’ report of two
large kunzite specimens with measurements and descriptions.
Kunz was certainly pleased. But then:

Although the spodumene has heretofore been
called kunzite as a compliment to Dr. George Kunz, the
owners of the mine have given their permission to European
jewelry firms to sell it under the name “California
iris” as being appropriately descriptive of its native
home and its remarkable coloring. Mr. R. Fenton, secretary
of the Pala Chief Gem Mining Co., states that the mineral
is being well received under this name in many countries
of Europe. Much of this spodumene will be sold as “California
iris” in the United States also, especially in the
West where the name is considered especially appropriate.

George
Kunz was no doubt angered by all this disrespect, and found
little to soothe his feelings as promised by Smith in the “bound
volume” for 1914. Here “California iris” was
deleted, but so was “kunzite.” Only the species
name spodumene was retained.

Please note that “kunzite” is
not mentioned once in Smith’s letter, and imagine
how George Kunz must have felt upon hearing “kunzite” called
a trade name! Surely an affront was meant.

By
1919 things had obviously cooled down, and Frank Salmons,
as president of the Pala Chief Gem Mine, wrote6 Kunz
that he had “a half dozen fine specimens of kunzite.
If you will be interested in same, I will be glad to
send them on for your inspection.”

Kunz
felt quite secure, as well as casual,
about his beloved kunzite when he
said the following in his memorial
to kunzite collaborator, Charles
Baskerville, in 1922:

About 1903 a variety of spodumene was identified
as new by the writer, and it was his intention to name
it after J. Pierpont Morgan. It was, however, impossible
to get in touch with Mr. Morgan at that time, and Dr. Baskerville
then named this mineral after the writer.

It
seems amazing to me what self-serving remarks can be made
by a person even allowing for some dimming of recollections
of events 17 years past. I have often thought that the
above quotation might instead have read:

It was impossible to get in touch with Mr.
Morgan at that time because he was in the bath, or because
he was having lunch.

In
fairness, it must be pointed out that in 1911 Kunz had
the opportunity to name the recently discovered pink variety
of beryl, and he called it “morganite” after
his distinguished patron.

The
name “kunzite” for the
pink variety of spodumene, like all
varietal terms, carries no scientific
weight. The acceptance or rejection
of such terms is, in the end, determined
solely by popular usage. It is, however,
still a universally recognized varietal
term along with others such as hiddenite,
tanzanite and emerald that will surely
survive. Sicklerite and salmonsite
are today valid species unrelated
to spodumene and J. P. Morgan is
remembered in morganite. But “California
iris” is long abandoned, and
Messrs. Heriart, Peiletch, Valiant,
Giddens and Nichols have yet to be
honored with any mineral names. The
spirit of George Frederick Kunz can
rest easy – his namesake is
secure.

The “report” referred to is Kunz’ Gems, Jewelers’ Materials and Ornamental Stones of California, 1905. Even the publication of this work evoked controversy. Kunz’ name does not appear on the title page nor on the outside of the book. However, Lewis Aubury, State Mineralogist of California, does give Kunz a thank you in print for all his efforts. Kunz, although he must have been upset by this snub, according to tradition, promptly obtained a quantity of the reports for personal distribution, had them bound in kunzite-pink cloth, and had his name stamped on the title page and the cover! (back to text)

Original photograph in the library of Richard Hauck. The photo is undated, but Sickler looks quite young; it must predate 1912 when two unrelated species (neither of them spodumene) were formally named salmonsite and sicklerite by Waldemar Schaller. (back to text)

Letter in the American Museum of Natural History library. (back to text)

Letter in the author’s collection, published in Letters to George Frederick Kunz (1986). (back to text)

The mineral spodumene is
generally known in large opaque whitish crystals,
but occasionally it appears in small specimens
that are transparent and richly colored. Such are
the clear yellow gem spodumenes of Brazil,7 the
green variety Hiddenite, or “little emerald,” of
North Carolina,8 and
the lilac or amethystine pieces rarely found at
Branchville, Connecticut.9 These
last are plainly remnants of what must once have
been elegant specimens; but spodumene is extremely
subject to alteration, and has generally lost all
its transparency and beauty of tint.

A
notable discovery has
just been made, however,
of large splendid crystals
of transparent unaltered
spodumene, of rich lilac
color; in connection
with other lithia minerals,
in San Diego Co., Calif.
The locality is a mile
and a half from the famous
rubellite and lepidolite
mine at that place. Pala
is already one of the
most remarkable lithia
localities known; amblygonite
has been found there
by the ton, and the lepidolite
is estimated to occur
by thousands of tons;
while the pink rubellite
crystals in the lilac
lepidolite are familiar
ornaments in every fine
mineralogical cabinet.

At
the new locality spodumene
crystals occur up to
the size of a mans hand,
entirely clear, and of
a rosy lilac tint, varying
with tile spodumene dichroism
from a very pale tinge
when looked at transversely,
to, the prism, to a rich
amethystine hue longitudinally.

If
cut and mounted parallel
to the base, these will
undoubtedly yield gems
of great beauty. No such
crystals of spodumene
have ever been seen before,
and the discovery one
of extreme interest.
A marked difference in
color is noticeable also
in these crystals, according
as they come from some
depth in the rock or
lie nearer to the surface.
The former having a deeper
tint.

This
difference is doubtless
due to the effect of
air, water and light,
which so frequently affect
the color of minerals
for some little distance
into the rock.

The
material is exceedingly
pure, with a hardness
of about 7, and specific
gravity (average of three
crystals) of 3.183. The
crystals are somewhat
etched and corroded,
and have a twinning,
like the Hiddenite variety,
about the a (IOO) face;
this is strikingly shown
in the etched crystals,
where the etching extend
to the twinning plane,
and there stops.

Close
to the opening, also,
a splendid occurrence
of colored tourmaline
was found, some of the
crystals being a foot
long and three inches
across, of rich pink
rubellite with an exterior
coating, or terminal
capping, of dark blue
indicolite.

Some
similar, though smaller,
crystals of transparent
lilac spodumene were
brought to the writer
last winter, ostensibly
from Hermosillo, Mexico;
they were, however, found
near Menchoir, California.

As
this is an entirely new
gem of a peculiar beauty,
a name will be given
to it as soon as its
characteristics are definitely
determined. Since
the above article was
written, the name Kunzite
has been given to this
beautiful and interesting
American gem, and we
congratulate Dr. Kunz
on having such a handsome
namesake – Editor

The Original
Specimens of Kunzite

by Lawrence
H. Conklin

The following article was
originally printed in the May-June 1988 issue of Matrix magazine
as part of their series on historic mineral specimens. It is generally assumed that the first specimens of
kunzite were sent to George Kunz and Tiffany by
Frederick M. Sickler from his White Queen mining
claim in 1903. Kunz lost no time in supplying pieces
to Charles Baskerville who then named the new pink
variety of spodumene “kunzite” in Kunz’ honor.

“The original specimens
of kunzite from the personal collection
of the late Charles Baskerville, who named
the mineral after Geo. Frederick Kunz.
Gem Expert. D. T. O’C. Spodumene variety
Kunzite, White Queen mine, Pala, San Diego
Co., California.”Label in the hand
of Daniel T. O’Connell former professor
of Geology at City College of New York.
These wonderful specimens are currently
in the outstanding collection of New York
Mineralogical Club member, Alexander Acevedo,
collector of important American gems. Photo
by Wendell Wilson.

In 1952, during my sophomore
year at the City College of New York, my professor
Kurt E. Lowe, showed me a cut prism of kunzite
that had been the property of Charles Baskerville,
a City College chemistry professor, and had been
used in the original determination and naming of
that species back in 1903.

The
specimens depicted here
are more examples of
this “type” material
from Baskerville’s
collection. The label
is in the hand of Daniel
T. O’Connell, and
is initialed by him.
O’Connell probably
never met Baskerville
(who died in 1922), as
he arrived on the C.C.N.Y.
scene in 1928.

However,
he recognized the importance
of these specimens, and
saw to it that their history
was not lost.

In
a letter from Charles Baskerville
to George F. Kunz, dated
November 24, 1903, Baskerville
states: “Perhaps it
may be necessary for me
to have a little more of
the kunzite. I prefer the
colored pieces, the small
refuse from the cutting
will answer.” Those “small
refuse” pieces are
also here.

When
and how they left City
College is not clear, but
they were in the famous
O. Ivan Lee collection,
thence to John Albanese,
a dealer from New Jersey
and finally went to Clifford
Frondel and the Harvard
Mineralogical Museum, before
coming into the hands of
the writer.